Mulcair’s bid to split budget bill 12 ways falls flat in House

The Conservative government confirmed Wednesday it will put its omnibus budget bill, C-45, to a number of parliamentary committees for review. However, the bill itself will remain intact, leaving opposition parties to continue pleading for some aspects of it to be separated and voted on individually.

That wasn’t good enough for the Opposition New Democrats.

On Wednesday afternoon, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair tabled a motion in the House of Commons asking for C-45 to be split, instead, into 12 parts that would each then be examined by the appropriate committee.

Aside from the finance committee, Mulcair would have the bill’s parts examined by committees dealing with everything from aboriginal affairs to environment, justice and public safety, among others.

He did not receive unanimous consent of the House, so the motion failed.

Earlier in the day, during a raucous question period, NDP environment critic Megan Leslie foreshadowed Mulcair’s request, saying all the bill’s “components have to be studied by the appropriate committees and not some kind of look-but-do-not-touch type study.”

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty replied by pointing out that those parts of the bill dealing with MP pensions had already been separated.

“If there are some other areas of the budget where there is unanimous consent, where the opposition members wish to ask the government to take something out and pass it unanimously, right away, then we can look at that, of course,” Flaherty said.

At a press conference Wednesday morning on the Hill, Liberal House leader Marc Garneau said the government’s move to have the bill studied at 10 parliamentary committees (including finance, transport, environment and public safety) shows that the government “has blinked for the second time.”

The first, he said, was when the Conservatives agreed to siphon off those parts of C-45 that dealt with changes to MP pensions.

But even still, Garneau is not pleased.

“Let me be very clear: this is still a drop in the bucket, because in the end we are dealing with a document that is over 400 pages long, affects over 60 pieces of legislation and we will decide upon that with a single vote,” he said Wednesday. “This is why it is inherently totally undemocratic.”

After the government’s spring budget bill was tabled, the opposition parties pushed for many of the same concessions they are now, particularly separating the more contentious elements (including those dealing with changes to the Environmental Assessment Act) and further study of the different parts at committee.

The government responded then by launching a sub-committee under finance to deal with environmental changes. But that, New Democrat House leader Nathan Cullen said last week, “was not great,” and “did not give Canadians what they need.” But this time around, he said, the party is “open to negotiations again.”

Midway through Wednesday morning, the NDP had already made moves to again try to convince the government to separate parts of C-45.

Leslie asked the House via a motion she put forward that the environment committee to “immediately” start a study on those parts of C-45 that deal with the Environmental Assessment Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Health critic Linda Duncan also put forward a motion – this one at the health committee – suggesting it should study those parts of C-45 that she said eliminates the independent hazardous materials review commission [HMIRA].

But separating the bill still seems the most preferred option for the opposition parties.

The Conservatives “have rammed together so many different issues and topics that it is impossible for Parliament to do what Parliament is meant to do: hold government to account, understand exactly what it is that we are voting for or voting against,” Cullen said last week. “We are suggesting and insisting to the government again that they divide the bill into its component parts so that committees can do their work.”

On Wednesday morning, Liberal interim leader Bob Rae told reporters there was already an example for the government to follow – its own.

The Conservatives allowed the House to separate out those parts of C-45 dealing with MP pensions, so “I don’t see why the same logic wouldn’t prevail with respect to other measures,” Rae said.

In fact, he added, “they might find there were several aspects of the bill that could be very quickly studied and very quickly passed.”